Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), our distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Seattle, Washington (Ms. Dunn), who will be hosting the WTO ministerial this fall.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague from Virginia to consult with the Reverend Billy Graham and Pat Robertson. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article referred to by the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It was an L.A. Times article that was written by the chairman of the Committee on Rules. [From the L.A. Times] End the U.S.-China Roller Coaster (By David Dreier) Twists and turns, slow and measured ascents followed by stomach churning plunges. A roller coaster at your local theme park? No, U.S.-China relations over the last few years. And it's a bad way for two enormous and important countries on opposite sides of the Pacific Rim to deal with one another. The U.S. should seize the upcoming opportunity to fashion common-sense trade rules that will offer the American and Chinese peoples greater hopes for stability, prosperity and freedom. The U.S.-China relations roller coaster will crest this summer as the annual trade debate over normal trade relations--sometimes called ``most favored nation'' status-- is merged with the more debate about China's admission to the World Trade Organization. These intricate trade negotiations and rules that are the stuff of lawyers and government officials are vitally important because prices, product quality, consumer choice, jobs and investments are ultimately tied to trade. Trade with Asia is critical to California's and America's continued economic growth. The American people have been exposed to China in the last year like never before. Unfortunately, much of this attention has been the negative headlines of espionage, protests against the tragic mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and illegal campaign activities. Though these all deserve to be discussed and examined in full, what has not received enough attention has been the truly revolutionary change sweeping across China. China is literally revamping its entire economic system, an enormous undertaking. It's the equivalent of the people switching to driving on the other side of the road, repudiating their whole political ideology and changing their economic language all at once. This type of economic and political revolution can't happen overnight. If it did, there could be such instability and shock to the system that retrenchment, bloodshed and political repression might reappear. When China tried swift, radical change during the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, 60 million people died. But things are changing in China, and mostly for the better. We can be under no illusions about the fact that the Beijing government is a repressive, authoritarian dictatorship. Yet although political rights are largely nonexistent, there is no question that personal freedom is on the rise, due in large part to market reforms. Year after year, the United States has extended normal trading relations to China over the objections of those who think that curtailing trade will solve our problems with China. I have never understood the argument that limiting Chinese interaction with America's vibrant free market, democratic institutions and renowned individual spirit of free enterprise would somehow strengthen democratic activists and weaken entrenched hard-liners. Trade with China is not a gift or reward that should be given and taken away; it is a crucial tool needed to foster change and reform in a very old, proud and different culture. This annual debate over commercial relations with China will end once that country is admitted to the WTO and agrees to take the painful steps necessary to bring its economy in line with world standards and practices. China's WTO membership will bring major benefits to Americans, by fully opening China's vast market to American manufacturers, farmers and service industries. Of particular importance to my state of California will be the protections of intellectual property rights of our world- class entertainers and high-tech industries. What a win-win scenario this is for American workers, businesses and consumers. As Americans, we must pursue China for our own self- interest as much as to help China get better, with the top priority being the safeguarding of our national security. China is a business partner, but we cannot confuse that with a strategic relationship. We do share some mutual interests that it is hoped would be increased as friendly ties improve. But just as a business wouldn't share its confidential marketing strategies or cost structure with a competitor, the U.S. government and American businesses must take care not to leak sensitive material to the Chinese government. China is simultaneously our business partner and our competitor. What we must do is approve normal trade relations and its entry into the WTO for the sake of both our nations. A stable and open trade relationship, divorced form the wild roller coaster ride of yearly fights and political trends, will increase prosperity and improve the lives of the American and Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) our distinguished colleague. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. I would like to commend our Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer for this fine product of his hard labors. Thanks to the fiscal discipline of the Republican majority in Congress, we have a budget surplus for the first time in a generation. That surplus money belongs to the American taxpayers, and we are returning it to them in the form of tax relief. While some of my Democrat colleagues are suggesting this is not the time for tax cuts, I would tell them that I disagree. More money is going to the government, as a share of the total economy, than at any point since World War II. Americans are spending more on their federal, state and local taxes than they spend even on food, shelter and clothing combined. Taxpayers need a break and that's what this Republican tax cut bill will give them. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we expect to see $996 billion--nearly one trillion dollars--in budget surpluses after we set aside Social Security and Medicare surpluses. While some are suggesting that we put more aside for debt reduction or ``other needs'', I know from my long experience in Washington that if you leave money lying around this town, someone will find a way to spend it. I believe we should return it to the American taxpayers. The Financial Freedom Act provides tax relief for all Americans. It starts off with a 10 percent across-the-board individual tax rate cut. In addition, the bill provides marriage penalty relief, pension reform as well as incentives for savings and to make health care and long-term care more affordable. The bill also includes ideas that I have worked for years to advance--reductions in the capital gains tax and the abolition of the estate, or what I call the ``death'', tax. H.R. 2488 will also make tax time less complicated as it eventually abolishes the alternative minimum tax on individuals and businesses. I am particularly grateful that some items that I had been working on were included in this bill. For example, the bill will lower the capital gains tax on qualified settlement funds used to pay the beneficiaries of class action law suits, such as the one established for those suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. H.R. 2488 also allows life insurance companies to file a consolidated tax return with an affiliated group of non-life insurance companies. This will go a long way to the financial modernization goals this body has supported. I have also been able to include a provision to encourage more foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds by removing the U.S. tax code as a penalty to investors from overseas. While there are some provisions I hoped to have included in this bill, I look forward to the continuation of the process so that I may have an opportunity to address those other issues. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we can get about the work of providing much-needed tax relief to the American people.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, remember that old excuse ``the check is in the mail''? In the ``old days,'' this excuse could be used more easily than today, when the myriad of electronic options makes sending a check a nearly instantaneous procedure. In fact, they are not even called ``checks'' anymore, but are called electronic financial transfers. With the telecommunications, computer and information technology revolution, there are a variety of options to get a document or payment from one place to another. As we use these advancements more and more in everyday life, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is losing steam, and its revenues are being greatly affected. Some even wonder if the Postal Service will become to the 21st Century what the horse-drawn carriage was to the 20th Century. The federal government itself is taking advantage of these developments and using electronic means to do much of its business. For example, this year, millions of Americans paid their taxes and received refunds through electronic financial transfers. Many Social Security beneficiaries also receive their payments in the same manner--an electronic deposit into their bank accounts, thereby eliminating the role of the Postal Service. And, the federal government is saving taxpayer dollars by operating in this way. It costs approximately 43 cents to send a payment by check versus 2 cents to send funds electronically. Thus, fundamental change is necessary to enable the USPS to adapt and compete in this rapidly changing world. The USPS has conceded that they do not operate in a legislative framework that allows them to be responsive in adapting to these changes in technology and to competition with these new services. In a 1995 speech, former Postmaster General Marvin Runyon said that USPS is losing a lot of its financial and business mail due to such technological changes, which has created competition from e-mail, electronic financial transfers, fax machines, and the Internet. Mr. Speaker, as you will agree, the vast majority of USPS employees are hard-working people who want to deliver their product in the fastest, most efficient way possible. For the most part, the problem is not with the employees of USPS--it is with the legislative mechanism that limits their ability to do their job effectively. First, the Postal Service has an absolute monopoly over first-class mail--there is no competition and thus no motivation to improve service. Also, the federal government subsidizes USPS. Thus, it has no real motivation to improve service. Also, the federal government subsidizes USPS. Thus, it has no real motiviation to be in the black at the end of the year because it can borrow from the Federal Treasury when necessary. The Postal Service does not have to pay taxes, and therefore has no real incentive to improve its efficiency. In total, USPS has no motivation to become more productive and efficient because it will continue to operate due to its subsidy and a lack of competition. For these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to convert USPS into a totally private corporation, owned by its employees. This legislation calls for this transition to be implemented over a five- year period, after which the current monopoly over first-class mail would end. To make sure USPS has a fair chance at succeeding as a private corporation, my legislation allows for the cost-free transfer of assets currently held by USPS to the private corporation. Consequently, USPS would have an enormous infrastructure to start with that they are already familiar with, and the ability to create new products and services to make it competitive with other corporations providing services it can only dream of challenging today. To increase the motivation of employees to work hard and make USPS competitive, the employees would own the corporation, making their earnings contingent on the amount of work they put in. In past Congresses when I have introduced this legislation, I have been opposed by those who believe that privatization would result in the Postal Service being chased out of all metropolitan markets, leaving it with troublesome rural areas to service. With changes in technology occurring everyday, the USPS is more likely to be left with rural and bulk mail if it remains in its current government-subsidized form, than if it privatizes and has plenty of options to respond to the technology revolution. For these reasons, I hope the employees of USPS will carefully consider this proposal and recognize its merits, as they stand the most to gain with privatization. I continue to hope that my colleagues in the House of Representatives might join me in this effort to privatize the USPS so that it will be a responsive, efficient service for all Americans to use in the years to come.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). (Mr. COLLINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first of all would like to pay tribute to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, starting out with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who I hope is in everyone's prayers. He had heart bypass surgery, and I understand he is doing well. He spoke to me about the possibility of figuring out how we would expand our trade relations with the underdeveloped portions of Africa where we were virtually nonexistent and was there something we could do. I talked to him about it awhile, and then the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined in that effort. We had meetings, and we decided to come up with a bill that would advance the concept of free trade and establish a free-trade agreement with sub-Saharan Africa. That is how the bill has finally reached this point. It is a culmination, really, of 4 years of bipartisan work to develop a U.S. trade and investment policy toward the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I pay tribute to all who have been involved in this effort and who have given of their time and their energies so graciously. This legislation comes at a time of great hope and opportunity in Africa. Already, the majority of countries in the region have held democratic elections. Earlier this month, peace agreements were signed in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May, Nigeria, the most populous nation in the region with 107 million people, inaugurated its first democratically elected President in nearly two decades. As Africans embark on this new course for their future, they said that they would like to be partners with us in the global economy. H.R. 434 responds to the change under way in Africa and proposes a framework for United States-African trade relations. In particular, H.R. 434 promotes mutually beneficial trade partnerships with countries in the region committed to economic and political reform. The bill creates a U.S.-Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, similar to the successful APEC model and the Asia- Pacific region, to facilitate regular trade and investment policy discussions. It provides enhanced export opportunities for nonimport sensitive African products in the U.S. market through a 10-year extension of the Generalized System of Preferences and removal of statutory exclusions. It requires the President to formulate a plan to enter into free trade agreements with countries meeting the bill's economic criteria. H.R. 434 clearly puts our European and Asian competitors on notice that the United States will no longer cede market share to them in Africa. At present, our European competitors, who have capitalized on their historic relationship with the region and will reap the benefits of the proposed EU-South African free trade agreement, enjoy a 30 percent market share in Africa. Most recently, our Asian competitors have doubled their share of Africa's markets to 28 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. market share in Africa has fallen to 6 percent. The trade benefits in H.R. 434 are important because they will support and strengthen the democratic institutions emerging in sub- Saharan Africa. A stronger, more stable and prosperous Africa will be a better partner for security and peace in the region and a better ally in the fight against narcotics trafficking, international crime, terrorism, the spread of disease and environmental degradation. A strong and stable sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a combined market for U.S. goods and services of 700 million people, more than all of Japan and the ASEAN nations combined. Already, U.S. exports to the region are 45 percent greater than our exports to all of the former Soviet Union. Yet our exports, which were valued at $6.7 billion in 1998, have just begun to tap into the rapidly growing markets of the region, some of which have posted double-digit growth for the past several years. As the sponsor of H.R. 434, I believe that its enactment will establish sub-Saharan Africa as a priority in U.S. trade policy and will encourage countries in the region to redouble their economic and political reforms. H.R. 434 is also important to the advancement of a wide range of U.S. policy and security interests in the region and to codify many significant initiatives already under way in the administration. I would remind my colleagues, also, that our legislation does nothing to impair any U.S. aid programs. That is totally separate and detached from what our bill attempts to do. We do not impair the continuation of U.S. aid where it is needed. I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 434 today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, transportation costs involved with shipping fabric from the U.S. to Africa are prohibitively high, and shippers rarely service African ports. Even if a U.S. fabric requirement were economically feasible, it would discourage investment in African fabric production which would prohibit Africa from ever being able to compete in that sector. A U.S. fabric requirement is a gutting proposal which will stifle African economic growth and discourage job creation in America, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and let me open by expressing my appreciation to all that have been involved in the advancement of what to me is one of the more significant pieces of legislation that we have had before this body in quite some time. I think, with regard to some of the arguments that we have heard on the negative side, that there are a couple of points that need to be stressed and perhaps put into a better perspective than we have heard today. And this especially has to do with the question of transshipment and the threat of transshipment. This bill has the strongest language ever that we have had in any trade legislation to protect against transshipment. And I think it is important to recognize also that the U.S. Customs Service has not found Africa to be a significant source of any transshipment at all in all of our trade relations worldwide. And the International Trade Commission examined Sub-Saharan Africa textile and apparel production capacity and found that the elimination of tariffs and quotas, as provided in this bill, would have a negligible effect on the U.S. economy. Furthermore, the ITC estimated that African exports would not grow over the next 10 years to account for more than 3 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports. The World Trade Organization agreement on textiles and apparels will eliminate all textile quotas worldwide by the year 2005. The bill's textile provisions are intended to provide Africa with a necessary transition period to develop its textile and apparel sector and to prepare for global competition. Without these provisions, Africa will be left behind. And Africa, in terms of our trade relations with that continent, has been left behind. This bill is designed to terminate that and to open up that door and that window and to create improved relations for not just the people in the African continent, it improves conditions for Americans, too. It is a win-win proposition. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentelman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I would like to harken back to what the gentleman said about that first amendment, Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That had to do with an established church. We are not allowed to create an established church in this country under our Constitution, but we simultaneously cannot obstruct the invasion of government by religion, as witnessed right up here on the wall, ``In God we trust;'' as witnessed by the opening up of each session of Congress with a taxpayer-paid clergyman's invocation in both the House and Senate from the beginning of this Republic. It is because our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of that. I went to public schools in Chicago before World War II, and we opened up every day with prayer, and the teacher assigned it to every child, you could be Jew, you could be Muslim, you could be Catholic, you could be Protestant or you could be an atheist. We did not have those in those days. If you were an atheist, you would be excused and the next person in line would deliver the one minute prayer. I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution before us today.